There is a mean on the scale, but it is not associated strongly with certain characteristics. It is associated with some, but placing in the middle would mean that, depending on how you look at it, you exhibit neither the characteristics associated with "extroversion" nor the characteristics associated with "introversion" or you exhibit both to a small degree. I don't know what the distribution of the population looks like on that scale, but I'd assume the majority of people would place right in the middle, meaning that the majority doesn't really fall under either introversion or extroversion. And that's exactly why with many people it is hard to say whether they are "introverted" or "extroverted".
Behavior is also determined by other traits that are not related to extroversion, which further complicates the task of putting people into one of the two restrictive categories. And once you account for context, you have to be dangerously low or high on extroversion for the observer to be more or less sure that you are either an introvert or an extrovert.
Research in sciences is an on-going thing. We have to come up with something in order to progress to the next stage of understanding. What you describe is collateral damage, not an intended result. It is highly likely that a couple of generations later these terms will be treated very differently - hopefully, in a way that doesn't negatively affect people's lives.
yes, they will be treated differently because they are mostly generalized bullshit catered for mass consumption rather than focusing to understand the human behavior.
collateral damage or not, it is no excuse when the evidence is there.
No, no, generalized bullshit is what people read online in personal blogs and in popular magazines. Psychology as a science does focus on understanding the human behavior.
I don't understand what evidence you're talking about. I re-read your post to see if I missed something, and I didn't find any evidence for any of the points you raised.
There is a mean on the scale, but it is not associated strongly with certain characteristics. It is associated with some, but placing in the middle would mean that, depending on how you look at it, you exhibit neither the characteristics associated with "extroversion" nor the characteristics associated with "introversion" or you exhibit both to a small degree. I don't know what the distribution of the population looks like on that scale, but I'd assume the majority of people would place right in the middle, meaning that the majority doesn't really fall under either introversion or extroversion. And that's exactly why with many people it is hard to say whether they are "introverted" or "extroverted".
Behavior is also determined by other traits that are not related to extroversion, which further complicates the task of putting people into one of the two restrictive categories. And once you account for context, you have to be dangerously low or high on extroversion for the observer to be more or less sure that you are either an introvert or an extrovert.
you just described why sociology and psychology are bullshit
Well, we don't know better.
exactly. and thus we shouldn't come up with terms that lead to policies that affect peoples lives.
Research in sciences is an on-going thing. We have to come up with something in order to progress to the next stage of understanding. What you describe is collateral damage, not an intended result. It is highly likely that a couple of generations later these terms will be treated very differently - hopefully, in a way that doesn't negatively affect people's lives.
yes, they will be treated differently because they are mostly generalized bullshit catered for mass consumption rather than focusing to understand the human behavior.
collateral damage or not, it is no excuse when the evidence is there.
No, no, generalized bullshit is what people read online in personal blogs and in popular magazines. Psychology as a science does focus on understanding the human behavior.
I don't understand what evidence you're talking about. I re-read your post to see if I missed something, and I didn't find any evidence for any of the points you raised.